DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (foreign priority application JP2023-066673 filed April 14, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. All priority documents have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 24, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May7, 2026 for the patent application 18/404,105 originally filed on January 4, 2024. Claims 4 and 5 are amended. Claims 1-3 are cancelled. Claims 4-5 are pending. The first office action of February 13, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 4 is directed to “an information processing method” (i.e. “a process”); and claim 5 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “calculating a user evaluation score,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 4:
“acquiring information regarding a characteristic item, among information about a user and information about actions of other users;
obtaining as a self-evaluation score, a score input by the user regarding the characteristic item based on the information about the user;
obtaining text data of a reply to the user made by the other users based on the information about the actions of the other users;
estimating, as an other-evaluation score, a degree of relevance between the reply and a semantic category corresponding to the characteristic item by machine learning using a word vector dictionary stored;
reading weighting coefficients for the self-evaluation score and the other-evaluation score from a weight information database stored;
tuning the weighting coefficients by machine learning based on the text data of the reply and storing updated weighting coefficients in the weight information database; and
calculating a user evaluation score about the characteristic item based on the updated weighting coefficients, the self-evaluation score, and the other-evaluation score.”
Per claim 5:
“acquiring information regarding a characteristic item, among information about a user and information about actions of other users;
obtaining, as a self-evaluation score, a score input by the user regarding the characteristic item based on the information about the user;
obtaining text data of a reply to the user made by the other users based on the information about the actions of the other users;
estimating, as an other-evaluation score, a degree of relevance between the reply and a semantic category corresponding to the characteristic item by machine learning using a word vector dictionary stored in the memory;
reading weighting coefficients for the self-evaluation score and the other-evaluation score from a weight information database stored;
tuning the weighting coefficients by machine learning based on the text data of the reply and storing updated weighting coefficients in the weight information database; and
calculating a user evaluation score about the characteristic item based on the updated weighting coefficients, the self-evaluation score, and the other-evaluation score.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, [without] any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.” (i.e. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “an information processing device,” and “a memory,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “calculating a user evaluation score,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “an information processing device,” and “a memory,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “an information processing device,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0075] as follows:
[0075] As described above, the information processing device 1 according to the present embodiment includes the information storage unit 30, the data acquisition unit 10, and the user characteristic score calculation unit 20. The information storage unit 30 stores information regarding the user and information regarding the actions of other users with respect to the information regarding the user. The data acquisition unit 10 acquires information regarding characteristic items from the information storage unit 30 out of the information regarding the user and the information regarding the behavior of other users. The user characteristic score calculation unit 20 calculates a user evaluation score regarding the characteristic item based on information regarding the user with respect to the characteristic item and information regarding the behavior of other users. Here, the user characteristic score calculation unit 20 includes a self-evaluation score calculation unit 21, an other-evaluation score calculation unit 22, and a final evaluation score calculation unit 23. The self-evaluation score calculation unit 21 calculates a self-evaluation score by the user based on information regarding the user with respect to the characteristic items. The other-evaluation score calculation unit 22 calculates the other user's evaluation score by other users based on information regarding the behavior of other users with respect to the characteristic item. The final evaluation score calculation unit 23 sets weighting coefficients regarding the self-evaluation score and the other-person evaluation score, respectively, according to the characteristic item, and calculates the user evaluation score for the characteristic item based on the set weighting coefficient, self-evaluation score, and other-person evaluation score. By configuring the information processing device 1 in this way, it is possible to appropriately handle other users' evaluations of the user's characteristic items, and to optimize characteristic items (evaluation items) that are over- or under-evaluated by the user. This makes it possible to improve the accuracy in evaluating the user's characteristic items. That is, it is possible to provide a user evaluation score that is closer to the truth for the characteristic items of the user of the information processing device 1.”
The claimed “device” is functionally described and provide no details beyond their descriptive titles.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory,” is described the written description of the specification as originally filed in para. [0080] as follows:
“[0080] Part or all of the processing in the information processing device 1 described above can be realized as a computer program (information processing program). The program as described above is stored using various types of non-transitory computer-readable media, and can be supplied to a computer. The non-transitory computer-readable media include various types of tangible recording media (storage media). Examples of non-transitory computer-readable media include magnetic recording media (e.g., flexible disks, magnetic tape, hard disk drives), magneto-optical recording media (e.g., magneto-optical disks), Read Only Memory (CD-ROM), CD-ROM, etc. R, CD-R/W, semiconductor memory (e.g., mask ROM, programmable ROM (PROM), erasable PROM (EPROM), flash ROM, random access memory (RAM)). Further, the program may also be supplied to the computer by various types of transitory computer-readable media. Examples of the transitory computer-readable media include electrical signals, optical signals, and electromagnetic waves. The temporary computer-readable medium can provide the program to the computer via wired communication channels, such as electrical wires and optical fibers, or wireless communication channels.”
The written description of the claimed “a memory,” merely provides a laundry list of options. As such, this is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element that is considered ubiquitous, standard off-the-shelf equipment that is commercially available today. Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Therefore, claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 7, 2026 related to claims 4-5 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Request for acknowledgment of Priority Under 35 U.S.C. § 119
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that all certified copies of the priority documents have been submitted, and respectfully requests acknowledgement of the receipt of all certified copies in the next Office Action.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner acknowledges the receipt of all certified copies.
Response to Claim Interpretation
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action indicates that claims 1-5 and all claims dependent therefrom, are interpreted as invoking the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because the claims allegedly use a generic placeholder term together with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure or acts to achieve the function.
In view of the cancellation of claims 1-3, the interpretation of the claims as invoking the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been rendered moot.
Furthermore, by the present amendment, claims 4 and 5 are amended to recite "a memory." As such, the Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function, without relying on generic placeholder language to achieve a particular function.
In view of the above amendment of the claims, the Applicant submits that the amended claims do not invoke the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) invocation is withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Office Action rejects claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and further rejects claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for issues arising from the purported invocation of the provisions of § 112(f), as discussed above.
In view of the cancellation of claims 1-3, the rejections with regard to the cancelled claims have been rendered moot. Furthermore, in view of the amendment of at least claims 4 and 5, which does not invoke the provisions of § 112(f), the Applicant submits that the issues underlying these rejections have been rendered moot. Thus, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections are withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
The Applicant respectfully argues “As amended, the claim does not recite an evaluation scheme or a rule for organizing human behavior. Instead, the claim recites a computer-implemented method for processing evaluation data, including: obtaining numerical self-evaluation data generated by a user and text data generated by other users; estimating an other-evaluation score by machine learning using a word vector dictionary; tuning weighting coefficients by machine learning based on the text data; and calculating a user evaluation score based on the machine-learning-derived results.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to carry out an abstract idea by collecting various types of data to be evaluated in order to output “a user evaluation score.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Such processing, taken as a whole, cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and therefore does not fall within the mental process grouping. Even the step of calculating the user evaluation score is not an independent mental step, because it is dependent on the outputs of the machine learning processes. The claim as a whole relies on automated processing of both natural language text and numerical data, in which the final calculation is inseparably tied to results of machine learning. The claimed steps therefore do not constitute mental processes, either individually, or in combination.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Furthermore, the claim does not recite managing personal behavior, social interactions, or relationships. Any evaluation result is derived from automated processing, rather than by human judgment or a scheme for organizing human activity. Unlike the claims in Electric Power Group V. Alstom, the present claim does not merely gather and analyze information using generic techniques. Rather, the claim recites specific machine learning-based processing, including semantic relevance estimation and tuning of weighting coefficients, which goes beyond abstract data manipulation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Electric Power Group V. Alstom, is on point considering all of the Applicant’s “acquiring” and “obtaining” steps equate to “collecting information”; all of the Applicant’s “estimating,” “reading,” and “tunning” steps equate to “analyzing information”; and all of the Applicant’s last step of “calculating a user evaluation score” step equates to “displaying certain results of the collection analysis.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, the Applicant submits that claim 4 does not recite a judicial exception and is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes, and thus is patent eligible.
Claim 5 is amended to recite the features that parallel those of amended claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 is also directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as amended claim 4.
In view of the amendments to the claims, and for the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits the rejection of claims 4 and 5 is overcome, and respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons stated here and above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights